Can behavioral decision theory explain risk-averse fire management decisions?

• Published in: Forest ecology and management 2005-06, Vol.211 (1), p.47-58
• Main Authors: Maguire, Lynn A., Albright, Elizabeth A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adaptive management; Animal and plant ecology; Animal, plant and microbial ecology; behavior; Biological and medical sciences; Decision analysis; decision making; endangered species; environmental impact; environmental policy; Environmental Protection Agency; Fire management; fire science and management; Forest management; Forest management. Stand types and stand dynamics. Silvicultural treatments. Tending of stands. Natural regeneration; forest resources; Forestry; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; literature reviews; national forests; natural resource management; Prescribed burn; public lands; risk assessment; Risk preferences; simulation models; Synecology; Terrestrial ecosystems; Uncertainty; wildfires
• ISSN: 0378-1127; 1872-7042
• DOI: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.01.027

Organizations managing forest land often make fire management decisions that seem overly risk-averse in relation to their stated goals for ecosystem restoration, protection of sensitive species and habitats, and protection of water and timber resources. Research in behavioral decision theory has shown that people faced with difficult decisions under uncertainty and decisions with multiple and conflicting objectives adopt mental shortcuts that systematically bias decision-making. Fire management decisions exhibit exactly the characteristics that are likely to trigger such mental shortcuts. Cumulative and unwitting use of mental shortcuts can lead to fire management decisions that are excessively risk-averse, to the point of jeopardizing stated management goals. It can also cause retrospective analyses of fire decisions to focus inappropriately on placing blame for bad outcomes and fail to scrutinize the quality of the decision itself. Excessive risk aversion is evident in the behavior of individual land managers, land management organizations, regulatory agencies that review land management decisions, and the general public and its agents in the media, courts and legislature. Remedies to excessive risk aversion include: (1) wider use of structured decision processes designed to counteract the mental shortcuts that plague human decision-making, (2) structural and educational changes within and between organizations to change perverse incentives that reward risk aversion and discourage adaptive management, and (3) locally focused collaborations among land management agencies, regulatory agencies, and citizens to build trust and to enhance understanding of forest management goals and practices.